His mom told him she didn't feel comfortable with him going to a school that she didn't visit with him. In the end, Mama usually wins.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by 49erNation85

I wouldn't be sir prized if he passed McCoy on the depth chart. I think he might have a better arm and accurate arm then him from the highlights I thought. He also got some wheels too help us prepare for QB's as Wilson , RG3 and other runners etc.

I think everyone who follows recruiting knows how important recruiting is, but it's still pretty crazy when you look at the numbers.

Good work!

I think top 10 and then top 20 matter a whole bunch. Where they rack and stack in there doesn't matter, too much, IMO. It's all a crapshoot and only half of these kids ever pan out. Which is why oversigning is such a huge deal.

It definitely is a big deal to be able to bring in consistent talent. After that coaching, development, and system make a big difference as well. Oregon for example has been a major title contender the last few years and they haven't really been much of a recruiting power. They are more the exception, but an example of development/coaching/system.

While the Alabama dominance has had a major influence on P-L's stats (I'm not arguing against them), there have been plenty of big time recruiting classes that have flopped. Its more the ability of Saban to take than talent and develop them into studs.

I'm actually bummed Kelly left Oregon. His success on the field was started to be reflected in recruiting and I would have loved to see what he could do with a couple of consecutive big time classes.

I think Kelly and Saban are both great coaches, but the difference between the two programs is absolutely the talent they bring in. If Oregon brought in anywhere near the talent that Alabama brought in, I think Kelly would've had two championships by now.

The point of my post was also not to suggest that recruiting well guarantees success, but rather that you can't really win championships without recruiting at a very high level.

I think there is some correlation between top classes and top teams, but a lot of what goes into Rivals (and everywhere else) rankings is who offers and where they commit to. Alabama keeps getting top ranked guys because they're going to Bama.

In general, the schools that get the best talent will be better, but there are tons of teams with top classes that still don't compete for national titles.

Texas A&Ms last 4 years were 22, 17, 27 and 15. Good, but not a team you'd expect to contend for an SEC title last year (and likely a NC this year). A lot of that has to do with Manziel, but their OL and DL were fantastic last year.

Meanwhile Texas was 5, 3, 3, 2 the last 4 years. And they blew dick. Oregon has solid rankings, but not great. KState was in the 60s the past few years. I'm sure there are more (especially with high ranking teams being bad).

Again, there's correlation between being good and having a high ranking, but I don't think it's a something that's dependent on each other.

Also Rivals rankings are complete **** now that 247 stole all their guys.